10 Begin20 Bush isn't president any more.30 If blame on Bush, then go to 2040 End

That's not an answer...

Quote:

This reminds me of Bobby Knight

...and that's a completely irrelevant, story. You introduce these topics and then don't want to follow through with discussion that stays on topic. Repeatedly only answering discussion points about how we have gotten into current situations with "Bush is not president anymore" and "Bush causedthe break up of the Beatles" just comes across as silly, particularly when you yourself posted an article that disagrees with you. Making excuses for Bush while calling people to task as making excuses for Obama doesn't help either.

And you didn't use to play these games. You use to give impressively detailed, lengthy, well-thought out points/counter-points that were on-topic, useful, interesting, and backed by relevant information. As I and others have been pointing out for months now, now you seem to only resort to avoidance and insults in these threads. I have to wonder if your unemployment/re-employment issues have had you too distracted.

Bill Glasheen wrote:

That's the topic of this thread.

As Ian pointed out, that's what this thread has degraded to...again. It started out with you posting a WSJ article about, and you adding highlights drawing attention to, how China has been flexing its new-found power by ignoring two U.S. presidents and their officials, as well as the British and Japanese governments...not too mention calling into question the strategy taken by all of them in dealing with China...but you did not want to stay on topic with that.

We get it, you hate Obama and everything he stands for and blame him for everything wrong in the world. On the one hand I admire your passion and drive on this topic, I certainly don't have it. But recognize that feelings that intense can easily become emotional baggage, clouding your judgement and affecting how you handle such topics with others, particularly when combined with the kinds of distractions you've been dealing with over the past year.

I'm going to take a cue from Ian, there is more to be lost than gained by my continued involvement in these 'debates' about Bush or Obama. More than happy to discuss/debate other topics though.

Bill, you can't just say you kicked my intellectual ass when the last time we "sparred" I posted relevant and reasonable articles by experts that you then ignored, reasonable questions which you ignored, and you only sent oblique insults back at me and suggested you know more than I do about how I form my opinions and what I read. My intellectual ass gets bested on rare occasions, but very rarely kicked, and as evidence of how strong and shapely my intellectual ass is, I'm not getting drawn back into a nonproductive "discussion" by adding any opinions about Obama and China here. But that Lesnar-Carwin fight illustrates the importance of cardio, eh?

"So you haven't convinced me that extending an olive branch to the muslim community is a bad idea."

Perhaps not, but given the very real problems of trying to prove a negative perhaps it would be a more constructive argument to present all the ways that such a outreach has actually worked?
Perhaps comparing and contrasting the number of plots and attempted attacks and actual attacks on US soil under the "olive branch" policy and others?

Personally I question if Obama directing the head of NASA that one of his primary missions is conduct outreach to the muslim communiy is helping to reduce terrorism but I would love to hear the details and facts about how it is saving lives and making us safer.

I think a lot of things get lost under the charge that we somehow "provoke" terrorism---an argument that hinges on our attackers having factually legitmate beefs that we can address.
If their issues are not factual, they want things that we can't provide/address or are motivated by drives that we can't come to common understanding/agreement on then we have a set of serious problems.

Agreeing to disagree is a liberal western value/notion. It is not one shared by much of the world.

According to many of our attackers own words they are acting in accord with their relgious beliefs.
If that is the case then I don't think there is much that we can do by way of "olive branchs" to stop people postive that they have a direct instruction from God himself to kill infidels to stop the violence.

The numbers of muslims killed by "fellow" muslims over theological disputes, co-relgionists charging their "fellows" with not being "good" muslims, political in-fighting, land disputes etc is vastly larger than any "outsider" has done. (except maybe the Mongols)
Point being there is much to be considered by way of systemic intercine violence being the norm and not the exception.

I would also suggest that making peace with sets of people quite willing to kill total strangers all over the planet "because" the little nation of Denmark published some cartoons they don't like, or assault and rape women "because" they were dressed "imodestly", hang gays for the "crime" of being gay etc might be operating from a seriously different cognitive framework.....a framework that is going to make nearly impossible to work things out with.

Don't have an issue with "extending an olive branch." Just would like to know to whom we are extending it and if it works or not.

It's important to remember that no prominent anyone has suggested that we're going to make al Qaeda like us with a charm offensive. Rather, we are trying to reach the undecideds, and we know this works--look at Iraq. If our attitude was that ALL of them were unthinking religious fanatics who could not be reasoned with, we would not be pulling out of a semi-stable country with a government... it would just have been a huge cluster-F.

I don't disagree. Just not sure that the "undecideds" are all that numerous or trustworthy in the longer run.
Most polling data suggests that the fanactics are vastly outnumbered by more moderate. That vast disporportion however has not lead to the fanatics being stamped out or even driven to the margins---the radicals seem to be getting stronger politically.
And even worse, many polls strongly suggest that even the "moderates" are more extreme than the term "moderate" would suggest.

Turkey might well be "moderate" today---but it's becoming increasingly what it was prior to Attaturk's reforms----with, according to some sources, increasingly "1st among equals" regional goals.

OBL's people will prefer the "strong horse" comment has, in my view, implications in both directions.

As far as Iraq goes:

A-If we had listened to the current POTUS/and crew we would already have pulled out of Iraq long before it was "semi-stable."

Not "bashing" Obama. That is just the facts.

B-Like I mentioned intercine strife is the historical norm in the region.
Saladin himself was cutting deals with the Crusaders against his own brother.

So I'm not really sure that Iraq is a good example. Or at least the "lesson" of Iraq might not be quite what people think it might be.....maybe.

Besides, I was not trying to draw a sweeping generalization. I was just trying to highlight that the success of "outreach" and "olive branches" depends on having a resonably common set of goals and priorities, legit complaints, and workable solutions to problems.

Lacking a common set of goals and priorities. Lacking legit complaints. Lacking workable solutions to problems. If that is the case, IF THAT IS THE CASE then I fear that our "olive branches" will be viewed as weakness. Worse it will cause us to waste valuable time and resources pursuing polices doomed to failure.

Admittedly this is a copout, but part of the problem is that it's very hard to get solid, objective evidence either way. And that holds true for any technique you might try. In a lab setting, you have the luxury of time and control, and you can really nail down whether what you're doing is working or not. Unfortunately the real world is a bit messier. It's really hard to tell whether the honey or the vinegar is more effective.

One point I would make though, is that the olive branch doesn't rely on them having legitimate complaints with our actions. If anything, it's better if their rage is based on wrong information. That's a simple problem (in the sense of non-complexity, not in the sense of ease). We're all agreed that convincing the hardcore fanatics is impossible, but if the moderate people (and I do believe that's the vast majority) can be given accurate information that improves their opinion of us that's a benefit for us. It's hard to measure the concrete impact of that, but that doesn't mean there isn't any.

I would be interested if there were any data out there on this, I certainly haven't seen any. Something like surveys that go to Muslims in Pakistan and Afghanistan and ask "Are you aware of XYZ?" (where XYZ is something we've done to try to improve relations) "How has it affected your opinion of the US"

It also strikes me as strange that Nasa would be asked to approach Muslims. I'm not sure how that makes sense at all, really. But hey maybe just knowing that the president of the US is so serious about diplomacy that he even asks unrelated agencies to help will help some people believe that we're sincere. Is that the goal? I dunno, probably not, but it's conceivable.

It also strikes me as strange that Nasa would be asked to approach Muslims. I'm not sure how that makes sense at all, really. But hey maybe just knowing that the president of the US is so serious about diplomacy that he even asks unrelated agencies to help will help some people believe that we're sincere. Is that the goal? I dunno, probably not, but it's conceivable.

NASA has been used for international outreach and to try to improve international relations for most of its existance, largely because it can find a common ground with other countries through mutual interests in science. During the Cold War this mission was aimed at the Soviets/Russians, now that focus is shifting to the Muslim world. When you look at NASA history, there is nothing unique about the current directive. Here is an article, written by a former Soviet scientist who now works in the U.S., on how presidents from Eisenhower to Reagan used NASA for outreach to promote peaceful relations.
United States-Soviet Space Cooperation during the Cold WarSure the details will be different, we aren't likely to join with the Muslim world to build a space station for example, but the overall mission of using NASA to build relations remains the same.

Just like the Cold War initiatives though, I doubt it will achieve much that will be deemed a success, but it might open a few doors that would otherwise not be opened.

the overall mission of using NASA to build relations remains the same.

That wasn't the NASA (formerly NACA) that my dad came down from the north to work for during WWII. I detect mission creep. And IMNSHO it's a reason for NASA being a shadow of what it once was.

When I was a kid during "the space race", I wanted to do math and science because it was cool and NASA made it so. NASA was also a major source of our technological edge. Now few want to do it who have English as a first language, and all the cool stuff is happening in the free market (e.g. Motorola, Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc.).

I'm experiencing the loss of NASA's edge with my work in remote sensing. NASA has stuck with the aging Landsat program while all the cool new imaging systems are being developed by private enterprise. Landsat has been an effective workhorse since the 1970s, but its capabilities have quickly been bypassed over the past decade by systems such as IKONOS by Geoeye. And they are even being bypassed by other countries now. The only advantages Landsat has now are its huge 4+ decade archive, all at the same wavelengths and resolution, and that its data are free to anyone.

There is some concern that the aging Landsat 5 (launched in 1984) and Landsat 7 (launched in 1999) may fail before the next one is operational (scheduled for launch in 2012). If that happens, it would be the first gap in Landsat data since the program started in 1972.

These issues are not all of NASA's making of course, but have a lot to do with the funding, or lack thereof, it receives.

When discussing relations with the Muslim world, IMNSHO it is very important to learn about the true and complete history of Muslims and Hindus in India... and how the situation was "resolved" for a very long time.

Not that I think this is the way to go, but...

One way to obtain "solid, objective evidence" is by dropping a nuke. None of us would like the results of the evidence, but it would certainly be solid and objective... especially given the fact that the "radicals" such as OBL have stated that to be one of their goals here in the U.S.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum